Cambridgeshire County Council - ccc-live.storage ... · This insight pack has been commissioned by...

Cambridgeshire County Council

Benchmarking report24/01/2018

© 2018 Grant Thornton UK LLP. | Draft

Introduction

This insight pack has been commissioned by Cambridgeshire County Council to support strategic planning discussions.

The report has been prepared by Grant Thornton's Insights and Analytics team using CFO Insights, which is an online analysis tool that gives those aspiring to improve the financial position of their organisation instant access to insight on thefinancial performance, socio-economic context and service outcomes of theirs and every other council in England, Scotland and Wales. Sections 1 and 2 of this report are high level benchmarking exercises comparing the net expenditure and total service line income of Cambridgeshire County Council against all English Counties and a nearest neighbour group. . This has been undertaken using publically available financial data submitted by every council to the Department of Communities and Local Government.

As part of section 3, we have also manually collated data on senior officer salaries from reports published by local authorities in accordance with Section 38 of the Localism Act 2011, which requires that authorities publish their policies for the financial year relating to the remuneration of their chief officers and lowest paid employees, as well as the relationship between the salaries of its chief officers and employees who are not chief officers.


Contents

3

Socio economic context 3

Benchmarking expenditure 6

Income generation 13

Senior officer salaries 18


Socio economic context

4


Socio economic overview

5

Figure 1: Socio economic profile with two nearest neighboursSocio Economic characteristics

In order to appropriately benchmark Cambridgeshire County Council

against similar areas we used a variety of socio-economic measures to profile the council and then find other County Councils with similar

characteristics.

The measures used were specifically selected as they give a holistic picture of the population of Cambridgeshire and take into account

spatial scale. Measures include age brackets, deprivation, earnings, employment rate and area size.

The socioeconomic profile, to the right (figure 1), shows

Cambridgeshire County Council in the context of all English Counties. The 50 line represents the group median, consequently points closer to

the outside of the profile are 'very high' in comparison to the group and those closer to the centre are 'very low'.

The spider chart shows that Cambridgeshire has a very high proportion

of its population aged 18-64 years old in comparison to the group and a relatively low aging population (65+). Cambridgeshire’s population also

has very low levels of deprivation and very high level of skills.

0

25

50

75

100

Population density

Employment rate: 16-64

NVQ 4+: 16-64 %

Deprivation scoreAge: 0-17 (%)

Age: 18-64 (%)

Age: 65+ (%)

Cambridgeshire Council A Council B


Nearest neighbours

Using the measures set out in the spider chart in figure 1, we have

identified the ten most statistically similar County Councils to Cambridgeshire, with Council A being most similar overall. These are

shown in the table and map to the right (figure 2).

The nearest neighbour group identified has been used as a more focused benchmark group for this report in order to appropriately

benchmark Cambridgeshire County Council against similar areas.

6

Nearest NeighboursFigure 2: Map of near neighbours

Nearest Neighbours

Council A

Council B

Council C

Council D

Council E

Council F

Council G

Council H

Council I

Council J


Benchmarking expenditure

7


Total Services

8

Figure 5: Gross Expenditure, Income and Net: Total Service (2009/10 – 2016/17) Figure 4: Net expenditure per head (2016/17)- Nearest neighbour context

Figure 3: Net expenditure per head (2016/17)- County contextNet expenditure in context

The map to the right (figure 3) illustrates that Cambridgeshire’s net expenditure

per head (total population) on total service was £968.85 in 2016/17, which is very low in the context of all County Councils.

Compared to the nearest neighbour group (figure 4), Cambridgeshire has very low net expenditure per head on total services. The two Counties with the most

similar level of spend are Council A and Council B, at £1,021.98 and £800.02 respectively.

Based on revenue outturn returns submitted to the Department of Communities

and Local Government by Cambridgeshire County Council it can be seen that between 2009/10 and 2016/17 there was a decrease in net expenditure for the

total service of 14.3%. In comparison, total English County Council spend has decreased by 10.5% over this time period. Cambridgeshire’s decrease in net

expenditure is as a result of a decrease in gross expenditure of 12.4% (figure 5). But there was also a decrease in income over this time period of 5.1%.

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

£0

00

s

Gross Expenditure Net Expenditure Total Income

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

£/h

ea

d

© 2018 Grant Thornton UK LLP. | Draft9

Does spend align with socio economic conditions?

Figure 6: Net expenditure per head (2016/17)- County context

The scatter chart (figure 6, right) shows unit cost total service line

expenditure against council area deprivation. From this chart we can see that there is no clear relationship between these two measures. Whereas, if

you were to do a similar chart for single tier authorities a clear relationship would be found with councils with higher levels of deprivation having higher

spend per head. Our analysis has also shown that there is no relationship between unit cost spend and rurality or population density. This means that

other and more complex factors are driving relative spending. Our analysis shows that Cambridgeshire has a relatively young population by comparison

with nearest neighbours, it may be that this is associated with lower unit costs for adult social care as analysed on following pages.

However, from the scatter chart we can see that Cambridgeshire has both

very low unit cost spend and deprivation in this landscape.

Cambridgeshire

Council H

Council I

Council E

Council CCouncil D

Council F

Council G

Council J

Council A

Council B

0

25

50

75

100

0 25 50 75 100D

ep

riva

tio

n (p

erc

entile

)

Unit Costs Total Service Expenditure (percentile)


2016/17 % total spendCounty Council

context

Nearest Neighbour

Context

Education Services 45.86 Very Low Low

Adult social care 24.46 Very Low Low

Children's social care 12.87 Average Average

Housing services (GFRA) 0 Very Low Very Low

Highways and Transport Services

4.56 Very Low Very Low

Environmental and Regulatory Services

5.33 High High

Planning and Development Services


Cultural and Related Services


Public Health Services 4.41 Average Low

Central Services 1.12 Average Low

Total Services 100 Very Low Very Low

Service line breakdownService line benchmarking

The table to the right (figure 7) shows how unit cost spend for each council

service line compares to all English county councils and also the nearest neighbour group. Although total service spend overall is very low in both a

county and near neighbour context it is clear that there are variations in the

relative levels of spend across service lines. For example, service lines which are outliers due to higher levels of spend include children’s social

care and environmental and regulatory services. However, there are also outliers due to low levels of spending such as adult social care, highways

and transport, planning and development and cultural and related services, which also warrant further investigation.

Four service lines have been selected for further analysis of financials due to being outliers and will be explored further in the following pages:

• Environmental and Regulatory Services• Children’s Social Care

• Adult Social Care• Planning and Development Services

Figure 7: Net expenditure per head (2016/17)


Figure 10: Gross Expenditure, Income and Net (2009/10 – 2016/17) Figure 9: Net expenditure per head (2016/17)- Nearest neighbour context


The map to the right (figure 8) illustrates that Cambridgeshire’s net

expenditure per head (total population) on environmental and regulatory services was £51.61 in 2016/17, which is high in the context of all County

Councils.

Compared to the nearest neighbour group (figure 9), Cambridgeshire has

high net expenditure per head on environmental and regulatory services. The two Counties with the most similar level of spend are Council G and

Council B, at £52.13 and £45.55 respectively.

Based on revenue outturn returns submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government by Cambridgeshire County Council it

can be seen that between 2009/10 and 2016/17 there was an increase in net expenditure for environmental and regulatory services of 40.6%,

amounting to approximately £9.7 million. This was as a result of an increase in gross expenditure of 42.8% (figure 10).

Environmental & Regulatory Services

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

£0

00

s


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

£/h

ea

d





expenditure per head (aged 0-17) on children’s social care services was £604.92 in 2016/17, which is average in the context of all County Councils.

Compared to the nearest neighbour group (figure 12), Cambridgeshire has average net expenditure per head on children’s social care services. The

two Counties with the most similar level of spend are Council F and Council G, at £612.60 and £603.27 respectively.

Based on revenue outturn returns submitted to the Department of

Communities and Local Government by Cambridgeshire County Council it can be seen that between 2011/12 and 2016/17 there was an increase in

net expenditure for children’s social care services of 11.57%. This was as a result of an increase in gross expenditure of 13.63% (figure 13).

Children's social care

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

£0

00

s


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

£/h

ea

d


Adult Social Care

13




expenditure per head (aged 18+) on adult social care services was £298.51 in 2016/17, which is very low in the context of all County Councils.

Compared to the nearest neighbour group (figure 15), Cambridgeshire has very low net expenditure per head on adult social care services. The two

councils with the most similar level of spend are Council J and Council C, at £302.21 and £278.50 respectively.


Communities and Local Government by Cambridgeshire it can be seen that between 2011/12 and 2016/17 there was an decrease in net

expenditure for adult social care services of 6.67%. This was as a result of an increase in income of 62.06% (figure 16).

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

£0

00

s


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

£/h

ea

d





expenditure per head (total population) on planning and development services was £3.06 in 2016/17, which is very low in the context of all

County councils.

Compared to the nearest neighbour group (figure 18), Cambridgeshire has

very low net expenditure per head on planning and development services. The two boroughs with the most similar level of spend are Council I and

Council F, at £3.58 and £2.15 respectively.

Based on revenue outturn returns submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government by Cambridgeshire County Council it

can be seen that between 2009/10 and 2016/17 there was a decrease in net expenditure for planning and development services of 62.9%,

amounting to £3.4 million. This was as a result of a decrease in gross expenditure of 55.1% (figure 19).

Planning & Development Services

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

£0

00

s


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

£/h

ea

d


Income generation

15


Income generation: Total Services

16

Figure 21: Income generation per head (2016/17)- Nearest neighbour context

Figure 20: Income generation per head (2016/17)- County contextIncome generation in context

The map to the right (figure 20) illustrates that Cambridgeshire’s total

service line income per head (total population) was £285.03 in 2016/17, which is high in the context of all County Councils.

Compared to the nearest neighbour group (figure 21), Cambridgeshire has average total service line income generation per head. The two Counties

with the most similar level of income generation are Council I and Council F, at £293.51 and £283.77 respectively.


Communities and Local Government by Cambridgeshire County Council it can be seen that between 2009/10 and 2016/17 there was a decrease in

total service line income of 5.1%. However, since 2013-14 there has been increase in income generation on 49.42% (figure 22).

Figure 22: Service Line Income: Total Service (2009/10 – 2016/17)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

£0

00

s

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

£/h

ea

d


Income generationIncome generation in context

The scatter chart (figure 23, right) shows total service line expenditure

against total service line income. From this chart we can see that there is a clear relationship between these two measures. Generally areas with higher

gross expenditure also have high levels of income.

However, authorities that are to the left of the trend line, Cambridgeshire is one such example, have high levels of income for their level of gross

expenditure. Whereas those to the right have high gross expenditure and to their level of income.

Figure 23: Income generation per head (2016/17)

Cambridgeshire

Council E

Council H

Council F

Council J

Council C

Council A

Council D

Council I

Council G

Council B

0

25

50

75

100

0 25 50 75 100

To

tal In

co

me

(p

erc

en

tile

)Gross Expenditure (percentile)

Cambridgeshire Near neighbours Counties


2016/17County Council

context

Nearest

Neighbour

Context

Top 3 income generators from

Nearest neighbour group

Education Services High High1. Council C 2. Council B

3. Council F

Adult social care High High1. Council F 2. Council B

3. Council H

Children's social care Very High Very High1. Council I 2. Cambridgeshire 3.

Council C

Housing services

(GFRA)Low Low

1. Council A 2. Council B

3. Council G

Highw ays and

Transport ServicesAverage High

1. Council C 2. Council B

3. Cambridgeshire

Environmental and

Regulatory ServicesHigh Average

1. Council F 2. Council I

3. Council G

Planning and

Development ServicesAverage Average

1. Council C 2. Council F

3. Council I

Cultural and Related

ServicesLow Very Low

1. Council G 2. Council E

3. Council C

Public Health Services Very Low Very Low1. Council B 2. Council I

3. Council A

Central Services Average Average1. Council H 2. Council E

3. Council C

Total Services High Average1. Council C 2. Council H

3. Council E

Income generationIncome generation benchmarking by service line

The table to the right (figure 24) shows how unit cost income

for each council service line compares to all English county councils and also the nearest neighbour group. Although total

service income overall is high in both a county and near

neighbour context it is clear that there are variations in the relative levels of income generation across service lines.

The table also identifies the three counties, of the nearest

neighbour group, that generate the most income for each service line.



Income generation: Key case studiesIncome generation benchmarking by service line

Of the near neighbour group only three authorities

have greater income generation per head of population than Cambridgeshire, these councils are:

Council E, Council H and Council I.

The service line income generation profile, to the right

(figure 25), shows Cambridgeshire County Council in the context of all English Counties. The 50 line

represents the group median, consequently points closer to the outside of the profile are 'very high' in

comparison to the group and those closer to the centre are 'very low'. Overlaid onto this is also the three

authorities that have greater income generation than Cambridgeshire.

From the spider chart we can see that in comparison

to these three authorities the areas in which potentially greater levels of income generation could be achieved

include: cultural and related services, environmental and regulatory services and central services.


0

25

50

75

100

Total education services

Total highways and transportservices

Total housing services (gfra only)

Total cultural and related services

Total environmental and regulatoryservices

Total planning and developmentservices

Total central services

Total service expenditure

Total children social care

Total adult social care

Total public health

Council E Council H Council I Cambridgeshire


Senior officer salaries

20


Council top salaries

Rank County Council Highest Salary

1 Council E £ 214,054.00

2 Council I £ 195,000.00

3 Council B £ 190,740.00

4 Council J £ 185,488.00

5 Council A £ 181,037.76

6 Council F £ 180,000.00

7 Council C £ 172,866.00

8 Council G £ 163,729.50

9 Council H £ 150,778.00

10 Council D £ 131,581.00

11 Cambridgeshire £ 123,728.00

Figure 27: Council highest salary against total council spend Council top salaries

Under the Localism Act 2011 all councils must publish the authority’s policies for the financial year relating to the remuneration of their chief officers and lowest paid employees, as well as the relationship between the salaries of its chief officers and employees who are not chief officers. We have captured this data from council websites for the ten authorities in the near neighbour group in order to benchmark Cambridgeshire.

The table below (figure 26) shows a rank of highest council salaries. This shows that of the near neighbour group Cambridgeshire has the lowest top council salary at just less than half that offered at Council E.

The scatter chart to the right (figure 27) seeks to but this salary data in context by correlating top salaries with total net expenditure by the council. There is no clear correlation between these measures, however it does place Cambridgeshire in a landscape. We can see that Cambridgeshire has both low spend and low highest salary in this context.

Figure 26: Rank of highest council salary - Near Neighbour context

Council A

Council B

Council C

Council D

Council E

Council F

Council G

Council H

Council I

Council J

Cambridgeshire

0

25

50

75

100

0 25 50 75 100T

ota

l S

erv

ice S

pe

nd

Highest Salary


Rank Council Pay multiple of median salary

1 Council E 9.97

2 Council H 8.10

3 Council F 8.00

4 Council B 7.93

5 Council G 7.89

6 Council I 7.20

7 Council C 7.00

8 Council J 6.90

9 Council A 6.10

10 Council D 5.80

11 Cambridgeshire 4.50

Salary multiplesPay multiples of near neighbour group

Pay multiples show how many times larger the top salary in the council is in

comparison to the median. The pay multiples of the near neighbour are shown in the rank table below in figure 28.

Of the near neighbour group Cambridgeshire has the lowest pay multiple of median salary at 4.5. In comparison to Council E which has the greatest at

9.97.

Pay multiples correlate weakly with total council spend on employees per head of population as shown in figure 29, where Cambridgeshire has low

spend on employees and also low pay multiples.

Figure 28: Council pay multiple of median salary – near neighbour context

Figure 29: Council pay multiple against total council spend

Council E

Council H

Council F

Council B

Council G

Council I

Council C

Council J

Council A

Council D

Cambridgeshire

0

25

50

75

100

0 25 50 75 100T

ota

l se

rvic

e e

mp

loyee

sp

en

d (p

erc

en

tile

)

Pay multiple of median salary (percentile)


Want to see more benchmarks for your authority?

23


Free on iOS and android devices, get:

• headline financial data

• comparisons on key service line

outcomes

• insightful commentary on current

events in public sector

• a spotlight on best practice and

innovation in the local government

sector

• a taster of our platform that is used by

over 70 authorities to benchmark their

spend

24

Download the CFO insights app

Benchmarks in your pocket: iPhone: buff.ly/2yL9Sbn Android: bit.ly/2A0lcNQ

http://buff.ly/2yL9Sbn

http://bit.ly/2A0lcNQ


‘Grant Thornton’ refers to the brand under which the Grant Thornton member firms provide assurance, tax and advisory services to their clients and/or refers to one or more member firms, as the context requires. Grant Thornton UK LLP is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL).GTIL and the member firms are not a worldwide partnership. GTIL and each member firm is a separate legal entity. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL does not provide services to clients. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate, one another and are not liable for one another’s acts or omissions.

grantthornton.co.uk

Cambridgeshire County Council - ccc-live.storage ... · This insight pack has been commissioned by...

Documents

Transcript of Cambridgeshire County Council - ccc-live.storage ... · This insight pack has been commissioned by...